You know you get a parking ticket for parking illegally, right? For, you know, breaking the law telling you where you can and cannot park?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pushes Back Against India's New Digital Market Regulations
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know you get a parking ticket for parking illegally, right? For, you know, breaking the law telling you where you can and cannot park?
Bud, I'm not going to sit here for hours and go through every Fortune 500 company just to fully disprove your bad faith argument. The fact that I can find examples of punishable violations of law by every one of the ten I looked at says quite enough about the validity of your absolutely laughable theory. I'll allow other members to render their own judgements, as I don't particularly care about yours in light of your complete lack of objectivity and wanton disregard for facts.
Yes, minor legal trouble.
Yup. Well, except when they don't.
"Apple didn't do it."
"And if they did it, it's not a big deal."
Your arguments are beyond predictable at this point.
Because the point isn’t coming across. So some granularity has to be put forth.
Sure. Not that it has anything to do with apple following local laws.
That’s exactly the point. An honest law abiding person can get a parking ticket. So are they now a scofflaw with legal trouble? And how does that scale up to a company the size of apple?
Law is law.
Technically, yes. Since you wanted to stretch this analogy that far.
Parking illegally is parking illegally. Just like monopolization is monopolization. Nobody should get special treatment under the law.
A $2 billion fine is more than the equivalent of a parking ticket.
Unless you consider $2000 an normal parking ticket.
Unless you consider $2000 an normal parking ticket.
They have been found guilty of violating antitrust law. It‘s not a mere charge - it’s a decision resulting from an investigation that began in 2020 and in which Apple were allowed to “defend” themselves.
That’s the point that even the most law abiding citizen can get fined and wind up in “legal trouble” and be a “scofflaw” even unintentionally. That scales up to corporate America.
2 billion to apple is pocket change. But that’s not the point. See my response above.
The difference of course being that someone could reasonably accidentally park somewhere they didn’t realize they weren’t allowed to and find themselves with a ticket. And while you’ve finally arrived at line 5 of your repetitive argument, “if Apple did it, then they didn’t mean to,” back in the real world Apple did not in fact accidentally collude and conspire with publishers to raise the price of e-books.
Last edited:
So what you're now saying is that Apple is as silly and quirky as your average Joe or Jane?
And apple (or any other company) could do something as well they believed was fully within local jurisdictions but turned out not to.
Companies can do what they believe are legal transactions that turn out not to be. But yeah apple can be as silly about average Jane or Joe.
There, did the stock price change, tims compensation, retail volume etc. this conversation only satisfies all participants who want to be right on an anonymous Internet forum.
Any corporate lawyer, especially a massive team (and presumably a highly talented one at that) that Apple would employ would be able to tell executive leadership that such a scheme does not comport with the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's not exactly a complex piece of legislation. Here's actual text of sections 1 and 2.
Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
And this appears to be news to you, but being found guilty of breaking the law because you believed you could skirt it or get away with something does not magically mean you didn't break the law. Though I concede that in your made-up world, this may be the case. Fortunately, the rest of us do not live there.
This is both hilarious and wildly hypocritical considering the fact that you ignore plain facts, create your own definitions for words, and twist yourself into a pretzel to maintain this fantasy in your head and claim that you're right and Apple always follows the laws of where they operate. Much to your apparent dismay, whether or not Apple broke the law isn't a matter of opinion. It's a fact and your claim has been proven utterly and verifiably false with finalized court cases. You accomplish nothing by arguing otherwise and only make yourself appear entirely unreasonable and without the ability to argue in good faith or recognize that you will not always be right. The ability to admit when you're wrong is a strength, not a character flaw. Of course, that ability is also at odds with a "want to be right on an anonymous Internet forum."
Very nice that you googled this legislation, but it has nothing to do with my earlier comment. If you believe apple got bad advice then they overpaid on their yearly 1b legal fees.
It appear to be news to you that a company could be found for a violation even when following all local laws.
It is pretty funny the hoops and cognitive dissonance that posters go through to try and convict apple in an anonymous online forum. These posts (including the above) aren’t worth the cost of the bits used to transmit them to the server.
When there is a disagreement in principle it’s because of bad faith. Way too funny.
We didn't convict Apple, various courts did. Feel free to check out the previously provided sources.
I take it that the rest of your comment means that you are finding your position less and less defensible, but would rather not admit that someone else might have a point. Otherwise, you would be arguing your position, not the other posters.
People park in places they can't legally all the time, it's trivial to do that. I live in LA, NO PARKING signs are a language in and of themselves here.
Nobody is accidentally monopolizing software distribution, that's something that you have to make an active effort to do. Like parking somewhere you know you cannot.
Let's just go ahead take that claim at face value so as to avoid having to listen to even more absurd arguments. Is that what happened to Apple? They were following U.S. law when they committed acts that were found to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act??
I can only assume that you must be looking in the mirror here.
Actually, the court did that. Some of us are just pointing out that fact and for some inexplicable reason you cannot cope with that fact.
When you reject plain facts and create your own definitions for words, yes that is in fact arguing in bad faith.
Last edited:
It can’t be proven either way.
You know what happens when you assume…
Some can’t cope with that it’s a possibility that a company could believe they are following local laws….
You are making assumptions in this conversation you can’t possibly prove. OJ was found innocent, does that mean he didn’t commit the crime?
Of course someone can be found innocent of a crime they actually committed and vice-versa. Is that what happened with Apple? Let's find out, shall we...
"On the day of the launch, Jobs was asked by a reporter why people would pay $14.99 for a book in the iBookstore when they could purchase it for $9.99 from Amazon. In response Jobs stated that 'The price will be the same... publishers are actually withholding their books from Amazon because they are not happy.' By stating this, Jobs acknowledged his understanding that the publishers would raise e-book prices and that Apple would not have to face any competition from Amazon on price."
There it is in black and white.
Come on guys, stop feeding the troll. His position is lost anyway.
Okay. I’ll give you the above going back to 2012 is a firm possibility of a definite maybe reported by a third party.
The burden of proof is extremely low around here.
That's the court's bar for burden of proof, as it comes from the trial itself. Are you saying the Federal Court's bar was so low that they allowed admission of manufactured evidence? Or perhaps that Apple's lawyers were so incompetent that they didn't have the "manufactured" Jobs statement disallowed as evidence?
That still doesn’t mean that apple doesn’t abide by the laws in the locale it operates from. You just brought us full circle back to that basic premise.
That's exactly what that means. There is objective evidence admitted in the court of law that proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Apple did not abide by the letter of the law.